2015 (7) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ouse Agent, had cleared only two consignments. On investigation, it was revealed that the Advance Licence facility had been allowed to the manufacturer exporter, whereas the importer, M/s AGM Overseas Exports even though a merchant exporter representing themselves as manufacturer exporter, tampered with import licence and accordingly, the goods were cleared by furnishing 25% Bank Guarantee, instead of 100% Bank Guarantee, as applicable to the merchant exporter. Further, it revealed that the Appellant had received all the documents through one Shri S. L. Sharma on behalf of the importer and after completing necessary formalities, handed over the papers to Shri S. L. Sharma for obtaining necessary signature of the importer. During the investi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmits that on similar circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of P. C. Chakraborty Vs. Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata reported in 2011 (263) ELT 462 (Tri.-Kolkata) , dropped the penalty against CHA. 4. The ld. A. R. appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). He could not place any judgement contrary to the decision of Tribunal in P. C. Chakraborty's case (cited supra). However, he fairly accepts that the facts involved in the said case are similar to the facts involved in the present case. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that this Tribunal in similar circumstances, observed as follows: "3. Contention of the Appellants is that CHA filed these bills of entry on behalf o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the importer, which were received back with the postal remarks -'left'. It is also submitted that as per the Appellants, Shri Sharma who handed over the Import Licence to the Appellants, had denied this fact in his statement before the Customs Officers. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were imported without payment of duty and in terms of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., the importer had furnished a bank guarantee of 25% of the Customs Duty being a manufacturer/exporter, whereas the Actual Licence was issued, as the merchant exporter and in such case the importer is liable to furnish a bank guarantee of 100% of the duty. The goods were not used for specified purpose and the Licence was subsequently cancelled by the Dire....